Unsorted FBI Documents

Attachment to Independent Case Review Report
For CDRU # 6352 Case file # 95-251947.

Material Examiner:

Malone (RO)

Remarks :

Case resulted in trial, transcript not provided.

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fibers

Review commenced at: 8:45 AM

File #: 95-251947

Laboratory #(s): 2 1 008055

21008053

(Time),

11/08/01

(Date)

Examinees) & Symbols

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

Reviewed

Not Reviewed

RQ

Xn

□

□

□

VN

□

Xn

□

□

□

□

□

□

Trial testimony transcripts) of:

Testimony Date(s):
Laboratory Report(s):

Laboratory Number:
Laboratory Number:
Laboratory Number:

Materials Reviewed

not provided

Pages:

21008055

21008053

Date:

Date:

Date:

Nov 10, 1982
Dec 9, 1982

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technicians

Laboratory Number: 2 1 00805 5

21008053

Page

Initials:

CRM - 11273

a

Was any other material reviewed? Xd Yes

□ No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: submitting agency letters, both dated 1 0-7-82

Results of Review

File#: 95-251947 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q1-Q14, Kl- K3, Q18-Q22, K3,

K4, K7, K8, K9, K10, K15, K16, K18, K19, K22, K23

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

1) Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the
methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination^)?

□ Yes □ No X □ Unable to Determine

2) Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory reports) supported and adequately documented in

the bench notes? □ Yes Xc No □ Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on
additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Xn Transcript not available.

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory reports)?

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes?

5) Testimony within bounds of examiner’s expertise?

□ Yes

□ No

□

□ Yes

□ No

□

□ Yes

□ No

□

Unable to Determine
Unable to Determine
Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 3

Initials:

Comments

(Set forth by above question #, if applicable.

Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed)

File #: 95-251947

#1 : With microscopic hair comparison, one cannot determine from the notes that the examination was conducted
in an appropriate manner.

#2: Documentation is poor. The notes are not dated or initialed and are in pencil instead of ink. Abbreviations
are used that are difficult to inteipret. Some of the hair recovered from the Q items are marked as "NSFC".
Presumably, this means "Not Suitable for Comparison", but there is no documentation as to why these hair are
unsuitable. The technicians do not document the recovery of hair from any of the Q items as stated in the report.
From the documentation, it cannot be determined if the examiner looked at items Q18-Q21, yet he reports that
no Caucasian hair was found in these items.

Review completed at: 9:30 AM (Time), 11/08/01 (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour): 0.75 hr.

I hereby certify that I conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review
are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 3 pages.

Initials: